Mr. P's Words: Ring Any Bells?

Tony Stockwell

Equality and peace are unachievable - our differences are powerful survival mechanisms. Tolerance and compassion are learned skills to allow the bell curve its true shape.

Like · · Share

· Paul Smulders and 6 others like this.

Romana Strasheim True

March 30 at 9:24pm · Like · 1

Paul Smulders One csn only srtive to achieve an abstract concept. One cannot actually achieve it?

March 30 at 9:28pm · Like · 1

Harold Thompson You statement brings to mind the theory put forward by Bryan Sykes in his book Adam’s Curse: A Future without Men. Equality and peace are unachievable, not because of ‘group’ and / or social differences but because of the male need to get the female to accept his sperm. Briefly, the theory goes like this – irreparable degeneration is being done to the Y- chromosome as it advances through evolution. This degradation gives rise to increasing male infertility. Women, he states, are winning the battle of the sexes because the x-chromosone, which has a ‘twin’ can repair itself to minimise bad mutations. Men must impregnate women to keep their y-chromosone ‘alive’. The more the impregnation the greater the chance of their y-chromosone surviving. Wars and invasions and the resulting capture and rape of women and the slaughter of rival y-chromosones are perpertrated to achieve this. It also helps that women are attracted to powerful men. He then gives examples of this, his primary example being Genghis Khan who fathered thousands of boys. (Girls don’t count)
Ultimately male survival is in the hands of women though, because they can choose to abort all male progeny.
In conclusion then, it is the genetic drive of men to ensure the survival of their y-chromosone that gives rise to inequality, not social or other differences.
A fascinating and entertaining book, well worth a read.

March 31 at 12:23am · Unlike · 1

Nicky Stockwell Interesting stuff.

March 31 at 12:30am · Like

Tony Stockwell The differences of which I speak are the random mutations and geospecific coping mechanisms that some have and others want. It is this which drives competition. I think there is no chance that our species will revert to snail-like options for procreation.

March 31 at 12:49am · Unlike · 1

Harold Thompson Geospecific coping mechanisms do not influence the direction of mutation. Has environmental determinism made a comeback?

March 31 at 1:00am · Like

Harold Thompson Sorry, forgot your second point. Future procreation will be egg to egg fertilisation, men will not be required.

March 31 at 1:04am · Edited · Like

Tony Stockwell Ahh let us dispense entirely with group dynamics and the mutual delight that coitus provides!

March 31 at 2:15am · Unlike · 2

Harold Thompson Oh ye y- chromosone your fate is written in the genes.

March 31 at 2:18am · Edited · Unlike · 1

Harold Thompson Sykes theorises 5 000 generations. Embrace group dynamics and enjoy while you can Tony

March 31 at 2:28am · Like · 1

Richard Michelle-Pentelbury Thing is, more and more integration, since it is a process and not a product, is about accepting that which "is" while nurturing the awareness of all at the edges of potential; a bell curve that is always present however far progressed along the continuum of evolution.

March 31 at 7:22am · Like · 3

Richard Michelle-Pentelbury Thanks for care you put into your commentary re Sykes book, Harold Thompson, much appreciate your Miltonic mind!

March 31 at 7:30am · Like

Harold Thompson Thanks Richard. Thanks should really go to Tony for his droplets of wisdom which he teases us with all too seldom.

March 31 at 7:36am · Unlike · 2

Guido Guidetti Bill Sykes wrote an entertaining "theory" primarily designed to make him $$ and more attractive to women. The male of almost every species, particularly mammals all have similar behavior patterns around competition and resources. So Sykes is postulating the elimination of all male mammals as they blindly propagate their y chromosome, hmmm

March 31 at 10:46am · Like

Guido Guidetti Once the resource and environment issues are resolved then compassion and tolerance can emerge

March 31 at 10:47am · Unlike · 1

Harold Thompson There is great variance in male patterns of behaviour around competition (other alpha males) and resources( females). An alpha male behaves differently to a theta male and very differently to an omega male. What Sykes postulates is that it is the alpha males who are driven, albeit fruitlessly, to propagate their y-chromosome. Interestingly he sees homosexuals as already having been eliminated because they do not propagate their y-chromosomes.

March 31 at 11:05am · Unlike · 1

Harold Thompson Tony Stockwell , Richard Michelle-Pentelbury and Guido Guidetti you assume altruistic behavior in humans. What happens if your assumption is wrong?

March 31 at 11:27am · Like

Tony Stockwell Guids - our will to co-operate has to balance our will to be successful. Because sharing time and space is a given, and each person on the curve comprises the whole, our need is mutual if poorly understood.

March 31 at 11:42am · Unlike · 1

Guido Guidetti That's why the concept of "free enterprise" as a form of competition is the best and most natural way to compete. No need to understand our mutual requirements, no need to worry about equality the hidden hand will reward success and success will generate wealth which under good governance (a big question in of itself) will be shared with all within the bell curve------Idealistic I know!

March 31 at 11:46am · Like · 1

Tony Stockwell Harold - living alone is the worst waste of time and energy. Altruism is not an absolute, it fluctuates within us as tolerance and compassion seeps into our behaviour.

March 31 at 11:47am · Unlike · 1

Harold Thompson So you assume altruism yet deny commensalism?

March 31 at 11:49am · Like

Tony Stockwell The only ism that works is pragmatism and for that you need a complete understanding of what we are - the other isms are then subsets.

March 31 at 11:54am · Unlike · 1

Harold Thompson Pragmatism is altruism with reward, hence my assertion that altruism is a fallacy.

March 31 at 11:57am · Like

Harold Thompson Living alone does not reflect non altruistic behavior, it reflects a lack of pragmatism.

March 31 at 12:00pm · Unlike · 1

Guido Guidetti I can buy that Harold, does a seeming act of selfishness prove altruism? or does the act in of itself bring a form of gratification IE psychological egoism thus denying the act is altruistic a debate worthy of FB friends lol

March 31 at 12:03pm · Like · 1

Richard Michelle-Pentelbury No assumption, Harold. It is at the very edges of Meme behaviour that a given person spills over into a new paradigm, or retrenches into old meme behaviours despite glimpses of "a larger way to be". Individual by individual, evolution is phenomenally slow. As such we have an observable mass Meme behaviour of Self-centricity, Familial-centricity, Ego- centricity, Rligio-centricity, Polotico-centricity, Global-centricity, and if we get lucky and have enough time we may reach a state of full integration (a Singularity of Spirit that is independent of a singularity of technology). Thing is, if there are for the sake of a metaphor twelve grades of evolution in our collective consciousness, there will ALWAYS be souls progressing through the grades. The concept is that the more people in a higher grade the further the progress of the bell curve. For instance, "we" retrenched to the fourth meme, Religiosity, post 9-11, when we were en-route to more and more and more of the fifth. Since then we've slowly gathered steam to be more politico-centric once more, and even are more aware of a grand-scale Egalitarianism in the offing. But with decisions to be made vis a vis North and South Korea as well as Ukraine and Putin, we may well have to retrench to the sixth level. (Recalling here, that one speaks of a societal mass meme as opposed to an individual.) The evolutionary potential that invigorates my positive thinking is that endemic to being a person is 'possibility', however unleavened, and that the individual possibility needs nurturing, one by one, in order for the group to see itself predominantly coming from a more inclusive, more integrative Meme. ( WE are no longer level one Survivalists as in the origins of mankind, but what if WE were entirely reduced to that meme by a nuclear holocaust?) As such, we currently may well be spreading less Y chromosomes (a physical manifestation) in preparation for a more 'spiritual' sense of integration; a singularity of compassion and accord. Ha! Reality would have it that we simply are too many in the big school, especially in lower grades, with too few teachers, and the budget of time and resources is running out!

March 31 at 12:06pm · Like · 2

Harold Thompson That's my point succinctly put Guido. Gratification is intrinsic to an altruistic act and thereby negates it.

March 31 at 12:13pm · Edited · Unlike · 2

Tony Stockwell No Harold - contributing to the whole and deriving benefit is confirmation of belonging. That is simply pragmatic.

March 31 at 12:16pm · Unlike · 1

Harold Thompson Richard, a reply to your post requires a good nights thinking and rest. I hope to respond in the morning.

March 31 at 12:17pm · Unlike · 1

Harold Thompson So contributing is pragmatic, not altruistic. That's exactly my point.

March 31 at 12:20pm · Unlike · 2

Richard Michelle-Pentelbury For what it's worth (semantics being what they are): evolution is fundamentally pragmatic. It's innate to each, paradoxically, for the sake of the Whole.

March 31 at 12:30pm · Like · 3

Harold Thompson I found your post very interesting and thought provokingRichard Michelle-Pentelbury. I hope my response does it some justice.
At the very edge of meme the electrochemical interaction of a hundred billion neurons in our brain shuts down and we die. This electrochemical interaction of a hundred billion neurons forms the basis of what we are going to be and the connection of these interactions with the ‘outside’ world gives rise to consciousness and sensation and by this we are. These connections to the outside world are dynamic, our sense of self is not cast in stone, and Paul Smulders may yet pay his e-toll account Andreas Jablonski may also, one day, pay me the R9000 he owes.
At the edge of meme (death) we are remembered (spilt over into a new paradigm) by those with whom we connected. This enormous mass of electrochemical neuron interaction which gave rise to self is handed over to those with whom we connected to do with as they please. Some are remembered (their consciousness is carried over and may affect coming paradigms......Einstein, Darwin, Jesus, Mandela, Mozart. Others are soon forgotten but what is true to all is that we are handed over to the prevailing paradigm. That there are so many prevailing paradigms, usually the interactions and connections of alpha males, precludes any group consciousness moving in unision from grade to grade or a sense of spiritual integration.
Evolution is physical. What are the chances of a hundred billion interactions connecting in the same way. Absolutely none! And thank goodness for that.
Jeez, I hope this makes sense!

Yesterday at 12:58am · Unlike · 2

Tony Stockwell Like the post H - residual conciousness, our own in conjunction with past knowns, impacts on the current paradigm as powerfully as the physical legacy don't you think?

Yesterday at 1:11am · Unlike · 2

Harold Thompson Thanks Tony. Residual consciousness does impact the current paradigm but can never do so as powerfully as the physical legacy because it is open to interpretation and manipulation. Mandela was a terrorist / is a hero and perhaps eventually who? Physical entities such as the law of gravity or genes are powerful because they are not open to interpretation. Manipulation certainly

Yesterday at 1:22am · Edited · Unlike · 1

Tony Stockwell Denial constructs alternate realities for many - sometimes in defiance of those laws!

Yesterday at 2:27am · Edited · Unlike · 1

Harold Thompson And thank goodness for denialists Tony, for it is they who fight nonsensical dogmas and beliefs and create real realities . . . . . Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Dawkins, Paracelsus, Copernicus, Scaliger. . . .

Yesterday at 4:07am · Unlike · 1

Tony Stockwell Hail empiricism?!

Yesterday at 4:11am · Like

Harold Thompson Or, as Inspector Grim would say, 'the hell with wishy washy, namby pamby, bleeding heart, bucket full of tears constructs.

Yesterday at 4:27am · Unlike · 2

Richard Michelle-Pentelbury Wonderful rejoinders, friends. A phrase I like is "which part of Everything is not?" It captures for me the essence of integrating Universality(s), ha! Goes along with the phrase "at the edge of the known universe".

Yesterday at 8:31am · Like · 1

Harold Thompson I must say I enjoy the debates which follow Tony's provocative little postings.

Yesterday at 8:35am · Unlike · 1

Andreas Jablonski Maybe so Harold, but in the end, equilibrium is everything. My separate reality has cancelled out that debt I owed you in your separate reality - I thought that was axiomatic.

Yesterday at 8:50am · Unlike · 2

Richard Michelle-Pentelbury Harold, I really like your exposition. Seems to me that our ego holds onto our general inability to accept the concept that I am utterly to be dispersed when I die; we much rather expect to be a ghost, an angel, a habitant of cloud nine, reunited with our loved ones, or even reincarnated as a single Another entity, retaining all me psychically, if not physically, but to let ME go? I,me, mine drives us, naturally. Existentially to let go and to realize the 'responsibility' (while one is conscious) is to contribute to the health of the whole within the limits of one's natural being seems so difficult to do. So we indeed construct all them thar small memes of behaviour and concept and adhere to them with a fervour inculcated in us by tradition and culture and influence. Individuation is a most difficult thing just to be. There be much of thou, and thee, but always it's really all about me. Ha!

23 hours ago · Like · 2

Guido Guidetti lol @ Andreas

15 hours ago · Like

Richard Michelle-Pentelbury Tony, Harold, Guido, Andreas, ok for me to make public our piece on this topic as follows?http://mrpswords.blogspot.ca/2014/04/ring-any-bells.html